This is what it seems like you are arguing:
1. Not all women have the choice of abortion due to personal moral constraints
2. Because of this, not all women can get abortions
3. Since not all women can get abortions, it is A-Okay to legally obligate men to pay child support
This is obviously a terrible argument. The fact that a woman has the choice is what matters. Just because some women don't exercise that choice doesn't mean we should legally remove an analogous choice from men.
So, if this ISN'T what you are arguing, what does it matter if "emotions or morals can sometimes make certain options unavailable to us". It is completely irrelevant to the subject of abortion, child support, and equitable law.
My question is plenty clear. Can a vegetarian eat a tuna sandwich.It was an answer to your question. Maybe you should clarify your question.
Haha, of course in this case you could argue that by consuming one they cease to be a vegetarian so the answer is no... but tricky semantics aside the answer is of course yes. They have the capability to do it. They can do it.
That doesn't mean they WILL do it.
I think you are confusing the words "could" and "would".